4 ms·

Total (not anecdotal individual's) productity: WFH does ??? I agree that WFH is positive in all the ways you mentioned. If all companies really believed it imp

Total (not anecdotal individual's) productity: WFH does ??? I agree that WFH is positive in all the ways you mentioned. If all companies really believed it improved overall productivity we'd be there already.

Someone1234 4y ago
We cannot reliably measure medium to long-term productivity with or without WFH. I find it a little galling though that the "Pro WFH" side needs to prove it, but the "Nay WFH" side doesn't simply because we've arbitrarily pinned that as normalcy. I've read studies that support both modalities, and based on comparing their methodology it seems very easy to construct them to show any conclusion you set out to show. I'd argue given the benefits I set out above (and others), a higher burden of proof should be asked for in-office, rather than just accept it as the De facto standard and setting the bar high to challenge it. If they both started on even footing WFH would win because the benefits are quantifiable, whereas in-office are anecdotal. PS - In the above I even forgot all the family benefits of WFH.
AlotOfReading 4y ago
I'm not suggesting that WFH is "plainly rational", but we have plenty of examples where the corporate world will persist in irrational beliefs long after any principled approach would have given up. How many years did it take for the corporate world to get over the belief that women could only be nurses, secretaries, and typists, for example? Corporations are made up of people and they're not collectively beholden to any particular logic or rationality.
throwbadubadu 4y ago
You'd be surprised how little is based on facts and data and how much is feelings and beliefs and just somehow reconfirming them... on all levels far beyond WFH/WFO debates (:
lamontcg 4y ago
We've had study after study since at least 2010 that open office plans are horrible for productivity and yet they still keep getting built.

Someone1234 4y ago

We cannot reliably measure medium to long-term productivity with or without WFH. I find it a little galling though that the "Pro WFH" side needs to prove it, but the "Nay WFH" side doesn't simply because we've arbitrarily pinned that as normalcy. I've read studies that support both modalities, and based on comparing their methodology it seems very easy to construct them to show any conclusion you set out to show. I'd argue given the benefits I set out above (and others), a higher burden of proof should be asked for in-office, rather than just accept it as the De facto standard and setting the bar high to challenge it. If they both started on even footing WFH would win because the benefits are quantifiable, whereas in-office are anecdotal. PS - In the above I even forgot all the family benefits of WFH.

AlotOfReading 4y ago

I'm not suggesting that WFH is "plainly rational", but we have plenty of examples where the corporate world will persist in irrational beliefs long after any principled approach would have given up. How many years did it take for the corporate world to get over the belief that women could only be nurses, secretaries, and typists, for example? Corporations are made up of people and they're not collectively beholden to any particular logic or rationality.

throwbadubadu 4y ago

You'd be surprised how little is based on facts and data and how much is feelings and beliefs and just somehow reconfirming them... on all levels far beyond WFH/WFO debates (:

lamontcg 4y ago

We've had study after study since at least 2010 that open office plans are horrible for productivity and yet they still keep getting built.